Case law

Bell v. Dawson

144 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2001

As discussed above, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from *461 liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Mucci v. Town of North Providence ex rel. Vallee

815 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity Officer defendants are shielded from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as to these claims.

Ruffins v. Department of Correctional Services

907 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 2012

Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Cuomo, 465 Fed.Appx. 42, 45 (2d Cir.2012) (defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “neither clearly established principles of double jeopardy nor due process prohibited defendants from administratively imposing

Torres Ocasio v. Melendez

283 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 16, 2003

Furthermore, Defendants also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity constitutes a right not to stand trial or face the burdens of litigation. See Saucier v. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not “ 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did *627 not offer a rational explanation for basing

William Sullivan v. City of Round Rock, Tex

837 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 2016

First, it “decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively un- reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit—not merely a defense to liability for civil damages—“insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Simkunas v. Tardi

720 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 31, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Furthermore, in summary judgment situations where qualified immunity is at issue, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the allegedly “clearly established constitutional right.”

Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns

11 Am. Tribal Law 31 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2012

, as Dana clearly intended. … However, the provision was, without doubt, part of the larger statutory scheme that established NHA as a public body.

Dr. Earl Evans v. W.H. "Sonny" Dillahunty and William E. Amos, in Their Official Capacities

711 F.2d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

As the Supreme Court held in Harlow , “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Moreover, “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by references to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial

Riebsame v. Prince

267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 2003

Deputy Prince is entitled to qualified immunity from Count III of Rieb-same’s complaint. Riebsame has not shown that Deputy Prince violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory law. … Riebsame has not proved that Sheriff Williams violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to Sheriff Williams’ qualified immunity. D.

Lord v. Murphy

561 A.2d 1013 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 12, 1989

The defendants by their answer asserted, inter alia, the defense of absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity, similar to absolute immunity, is an entitlement of “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Soto v. Coughlin

666 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

The defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the conduct alleged in the complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not, at the time it occurred, violate clearly established law … Qualified immunity from liability is available to executive officials in their personal capacity only if the conduct at issue was not a clearly established violation of law at the time the conduct occurred, and only with

Baptist v. O'LEARY

742 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1990

Qualified Immunity No such trial will be necessary here, though, because defendants must prevail on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As Harlow v. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

McCormick v. City of Lawrence

325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 24, 2004

Even if the court were to proceed to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court would determine that it is not clearly established that Plaintiffs were- engaging in protected speech. … See Camfield, 248 F.3d at 1228 (citing Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 530 (holding that qualified immunity was proper when the plaintiff failed to cite any case law showing that the law was clearly established)).

Shipp v. McMahon

234 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 2000

’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, we find that Shipp articulates a clearly established right under the minimum requirements of Rule 12(b)(6).3 Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must show that the defendant

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

Thomas Bowden v. Vernon Martin

807 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

Public officials are immune from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We need not address the separate question of whether any infringed right was clearly established, although we note that the qualified immunity inquiry is not identical to the question of probable cause: an official enjoys

Wilson v. State

84 Wash. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1996

A plaintiff seeking to rebut a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct interfered with a clearly established constitutional right. White, 78 Wn. App. at 837 . … Thus, Wilson has failed to show that defendants interfered with his "clearly established” constitutional free speech rights. Consequently, the individual defendants may claim the defense of qualified immunity.

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

Wolfenbarger v. Williams

826 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

In this appeal, the defendants make three arguments in support of their claim of qualified immunity. First, they urge that Wolfenbarger’s property interest was not clearly established. … They maintain that while it is now clearly established that Wolfenbarger has a property interest in the stereo items, it was not clearly established at the time.